Wormald Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald

Case [2019] FWCA 5301


[2019] FWCA 5301
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Wormald Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald
(AG2019/2198)

WORMALD TOOWOOMBA FIRE ALARM ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT – 2019 – 2022

Electrical contracting industry

COMMISSIONER HARPER-GREENWELL

MELBOURNE, 30 JULY 2019

Application for approval of the Wormald Toowoomba Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement - 2019 - 2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wormald Toowoomba Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement - 2019 - 2022 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Wormald Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[4] The Employer did not notify employees of the time, place and method of voting seven clear days before the commencement of the voting process. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I am satisfied that this constitutes a minor procedural or technical error for the purposes of s.188(2)(a). Further, having regard to the content of the statutory declaration I am satisfied that the employees covered by the agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the error. As a result, I am satisfied that the Agreement has been genuinely agreed within the meaning of s.188(2) of the Act.

[5] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[6] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[7] The Agreement was approved on 30 July 2019 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 6 August 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE504666  PR710853>

Annexure A

Details
AGLC
Wormald Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald [2019] FWCA 5301
Case
[2019] FWCA 5301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wormald Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Wormald, applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Wormald Toowoomba Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement 2019-2022. The application was opposed by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, which argued that the agreement did not meet the "better off overall test" as required by section 232 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union contended that the agreement was not genuinely negotiated, and that it unfairly disadvantaged employees by reducing their pay and entitlements.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether it satisfied the better off overall test. The Commission examined the negotiation process and the contents of the agreement to determine if it met the statutory requirements. In particular, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement provided employees with outcomes no less favourable than their previous terms and conditions of employment.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and met the better off overall test. The Commission noted that the parties had engaged in a thorough and good faith negotiation process, and that the agreement contained provisions that improved the employees' entitlements in various ways. The Commission concluded that the agreement provided employees with outcomes that were no less favourable than their previous terms and conditions of employment, and therefore approved the agreement. The union's application to oppose the agreement was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.